+ + + + + – +
+ + + + + + + + +
4.4
Publication IV: Global Energy Security Index AimsThe overall purpose of this research was to evaluate energy security quantitively with numerical indicators. An Energy Security Index (ESI) was modelled and then applied on all national countries globally to achieve the goal of this work.
Methods
To build the ESI, the numerous steps that were followed were detailed in the methods chapter. The result was to correlate 76 numerical indicators to all the 50 parameters and 15 dimensions to quantitatively evaluate energy security. All the proposed indicators for all parameters and dimensions, references, units and normalizations methods were presented in Publication IV in detail. After designing a ready-to-use ESI, data for all countries were collected and the ESI was aggregated using the data.
Results
Results of the exact values of the ESI for each country are presented in Figure 10.
4.4 Publication IV: Global Energy Security Index 55
Figure 10: Global energy security levels. The applied colour of the bars indicates the number of missing parameters: blue <= 5, yellow 5 <= 10, orange 10 <= 15, red > 15.
The aggregated ESI is the result of 15 dimensions, Publication IV provided detailed results for performance of all countries in each of the 15 dimensions. Additionally, a colour-coded world map for the overall ESI is presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Global view of the Energy Security Index.
One of the best 10 performing countries globally in terms of energy security is Germany with an overall ESI of 58.2%. The detailed achievement of each dimension for Germany is presented in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Detailed energy security view for Germany for all dimensions, values 0-100 represent worst to best.
Availability
Diversity
Cost
Technology &
Efficiency
Location
Timeframe Resilience
Environment Health
Culture Literacy Employment
Policy Military
Cybersecurity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
57
5 Discussion
5.1
General discussion of the presented resultAs the results’ chapter presented promising outcomes of this research, several points can be addressed and discussed. The first result from Publication I showed clearly how energy security can be defined. The formulated definition is as generic as possible in order to be applied on all aspects of energy systems, but as detailed as possible to provide a clear understanding. Further, the proposed definition of energy security fromPublication I covers all dimensions of energy security and what threats can be imposed against it.
This result goes hand in hand with previous research where it is deemed important to provide a definition that is generic in nature (Kirchner & Berk, 2010).
Most of the previous research work was not able to achieve the same results, but some researchers provided similar results. Kanchana & Unesaki (2014) defined energy security as “Access to modern energy services”. Although this definition is generic in nature and can be applied on many aspects of energy services, it examines the topic from the end users’ perspective, i.e. those who receive the services. Unlike the definition from Publication I, this definition will not be able to account for security of demand in the perspective of the producer.
Another similar generic result for defining energy security was provided by Jewell et al.
(2014). Their definition of energy security was “Low vulnerability of vital energy systems”. This definition lacked simplicity and deviated from the nature of energy security, which is avoided in the results of this research as demonstrated inPublication I. Although this definition accounted for many aspects of energy systems, as vital aspects are addressed and analysed, it turned a white spot on other aspects of the energy system that are not as vital but are important for higher efficiency and improved performance.
The results of this research, shown in Publication I, include all important aspects of energy security whether they are vital or just influential. Furthermore, this definition does not consider energy security as an overall feature of the energy system but rather a susceptibility of being damaged only. The result, as shown inPublication I, accounts for vulnerability and threats as part of an overall feature of the system because, as was concluded by Gnansounou (2011), the concept of threat is to be included in the definition.
In addition, unlike Jewell et al. (2014) the result of this dissertation accounts for the environment and sustainability, as was concluded by Von Hippel et al. (2011), the concept of sustainability has to be taken into consideration when addressing energy security.
Additionally, it was found in previous literature that with environmental climate mitigation policies, energy security is affected positively (Matsumoto, 2015). This proves the need to address the environment and sustainability in the discussion of energy security; this is exactly what was presented inPublication I.
After the definition was formulated, dimensions and threats had to be identified. As it has been presented inPublication I, this research found 15 dimensions and 50 parameters of
energy security. Unlike other researches, this current research collected and included all dimensions in one analytical framework. The most comprehensive previous literature only included 13 dimensions (Lovins & Lovins, 1981), excluding literacy and cyber security. This can be understood as their analysis was before the widespread use of telecommunication technologies. All other researchers lagged behind in the number of analysed dimensions, for example; 7 dimensions were addressed by UNDP (2000), 8 dimensions by Barton et al. (2004), 3 dimensions by Gawdat (2005), 10 dimensions by Haghighi (2007), 11 dimensions by Pascual and Elkind (2010), 5 dimensions by ehuli et al. (2013), 10 dimensions by Kucharski and Unesaki (2015), 8 dimensions by Kumar et al. (2016), and 3 dimensions by Matsumoto et al. (2018) and Matsumoto & Shiraki (2018). The whole list of which dimensions are included for each publication is presented inPublication I (Supplementary Material).
After formulating the energy security analysis framework, it was applied on energy storage as a representation of energy sub-systems. Results fromPublication II showed that Thermal Energy Storage (TES) has the lead in comparison to all other storage technologies. This is attributed to the positive relationship between TES and each of the dimensions. As can be seen from the results inPublication II, the only dimension that has a negative relationship with TES is the military dimension, since TES can be an easy target for military attacks. The results from Publication II are unique as previous literature did not include any energy storage analysis from the perspective of 15 energy security dimensions. Some previous research claimed to address energy security regarding energy storage, but their claim was of limited value as they did not have a clear view of what energy security is. For example, Strielkowski et al. (2016) misleadingly put energy security in the title of their paper but energy security was mentioned only once throughout the article with no evaluation on how energy security is affected by energy storage development. The same misleading flaw can be noted in a research done by Zafirakis & Chalvatzis (2014) where in the title, energy security is claimed to be improved by a proposed energy storage system, but then, energy security is lightly discussed with no analytical framework of analysis and with no comparison between energy storage technologies in perspective to energy security. Publication II is the first novel analysis of energy storage technologies from the perspective of energy security with a well-established and detailed analytical framework based on the 15 dimensions of energy security.
In contrast, the current research, as shown inPublication III, reached a result of total feasibility of 100% renewable energy system, similar to what was found in previous research that was done for the MENA region (Aghahosseini et al., 2020) Saudi Arabia (Caldera et al., 2018), Turkey (Kilickaplan et al., 2017) and Iran (Aghahosseini et al., 2018; Caldera et al., 2019; Ghorbani et al., 2017; 2020). Although benefits from renewable energy for Jordan were found in this research, as shown inPublication III, are similar to benefits found in previous research done by Jaber et al. (2015),Publication III continues to provide a clear pathway for how to seize these benefits in reality, not only highlighting its potential as was done before (Anagreh & Bataineh, 2011; Anagreh et al., 2010). The last aspect of the future scenario, unlike earlier studies for desalination options
5.1 General discussion of the presented result 59 with a fossil fuel based energy system (Østergaard et al., 2014), this research, as provided byPublication III, offers a detailed desalination capacity installation scheme based on 100% renewable energy technologies. Although energy security benefits from renewable energy systems were found by previous researchers (Matsumoto & Andriosopoulos, 2016), results fromPublication III regarding positive impacts on energy security by a 100% renewable energy system with the detailed results for the 6 dimensions, are not precedented.
The last piece of the results is the global quantitative evaluation of energy security for all countries in the world, as presented inPublication IV. As it was shown in the results’
chapter, Publication IV, energy security levels differ from one country to another.
Although previous literature tried to provide global energy security analysis (Wang &
Zhou, 2017; WEC, 2019),Publication IV of this research overcomes their research gaps.
For Wang & Zhou (2017), their research did not include all dimensions and parameters that affect energy security globally, thus their evaluation is imperfect, with remaining defects. In addition, their results were clustered, and countries were grouped when the analysis was completed. Such grouping hindered the applicability of the results on national levels. The results ofPublication IV are different as they show the achievements of each country individually. The same shortcoming in the results of energy security evaluation can be noticed from the research that was done by WEC (2019), in which a very limited number of parameters are included. Furthermore, unlike results from WEC (2019), where transparency is almost absent, the results of this research as shown in Publication IV provide a complete track of all calculations to achieve the ESI values of all countries. For example, results are transparent about the fact that 115 countries have no more than 5 missing parameters, 28 countries are affected by 6-10 missing parameters, 22 countries are affected by 11-15 missing parameters, and 64 countries suffering from more than 15 missing parameters. Parameters are missing mostly due to missing data for non-sovereign countries or the country’s population is less than 100,000. In total, there are 44 countries, either non-sovereign or with low populations, in the 64 analysed countries within the lowest category that suffer from more than 15 missing parameters.
The world map representation that is shown inPublication IV provides insights on how the energy security performance is different in different countries. Germany and USA are among the highest ranks in the world for energy security levels. This result is different than the results of WEC (2019) where Switzerland and Sweden were on the top. The reason for this difference is the number of used dimensions and parameters. WEC (2019) considered a very limited number of indicators and parameters that do not cover the whole spectrum of aspects affecting energy security. Results fromPublication IVof this current research are more reliable as they include more aspects in the analysis.
The last point to be discussed is the path Germany and USA followed to achieve high energy security levels. Energy security performance of Germany, shown inPublication IV, proves that lacking in natural resources does not hinder energy security if political will exists to advance resilience and regulations. USA has a more balanced distribution
of the dimensions on a high level. Also, results fromPublication IV suggest that lagging behind in one dimension can be compensated by a higher performance in other dimensions and such a situation should not hinder development. This point confirms the need of a multi-dimensional evaluation of energy security in order to compile a comprehensive analysis.
5.2
Global policy implicationsAs the results of this research are diverse and on multiple fronts, many utilizations and policy implications can be drawn to provide policy makers with deep insights of how to benefit from these results. As this research is focused on a global-national analysis, so could the policy implication.
The first policy implication for researchers and governments may be to use the formulated definition of energy security in their future research. Although Ang et al. (2015) concluded that it is unlikely to have a commonly accepted procedure to formulate an energy security definition and framework, a widespread adoption of our generic definition, with its ability to be applied on all aspects of energy security, may make energy security analyses more coherent, precise and reliable.
This acceptance can be seen as a reality if governments would start to adopt such a definition in their official publications. Although there are some attempts from international organizations to provide such a definition (IEA, 2001; 2007; UNDP et al., 2004; UNDP, 2000; 2011), their efforts were not successful as their view on the energy security definition were similar to the current situation of vagueness and no-consensus (Checchi et al., 2009; Kruyt et al., 2009). Also, their framework lacked many aspects of energy security, as was discussed in detail inPublication I.
Once there is a broader consensus, then a discussion and evaluation of energy security could be more comparable, and it can be evaluated and compared globally. As Aristotle reputedly said, “he who controls the definition, controls the debate.” (Sovacool, 2011b), results from Publication I implicate policy adoption of the formulated definition and framework to overcome the complexity of the concept, as was the policy implication from Kirchner & Berk (2010). Similar policy implications may be obtained from adopting the 15 dimensions framework presented inPublication I. It makes the elements of energy security well known and thus easier to evaluate and compare. More reliable and comparable evaluation will give policy makers in various countries valuable insights on how to enhance energy security in their territories in comparison to others. In addition, as was concluded by Sovacool (2013c), policies for adopting an energy security definition should have a consistent polycentric approach with emphasis on engaging stakeholders at multiple geographic scales.
The second potential policy implication is the regulations and rules that could be put in place in order to ensure the use of a portfolio of the most secure energy technologies. In
5.2 Global policy implications 61 this research in the exemplarily analysis for energy storage, TES, was found to be the most secure energy storage technology, and thus policies to favour this technology may be beneficial for both production and installation. As the magnitude of the energy security benefits depends on the energy security profile of the sub-system (Lefèvre, 2010), policies favouring TES can enhance energy security levels of the whole system. The application of such a policy could be broadened to more categories of energy technologies.
As found by Sovacool (2013c) policies on a carbon tax can be a useful tool for promoting energy security through renewable energy. Similar implications might be noticed from a rare earth metal tax to channel the use of TES. However, Sovacool (2013c) clarifies that even such a tax does not affect the overall economy, he states that this is not the same for all countries. For that, the results fromPublication II imply that at least policies could propose requirements for energy storage permits. Such requirements make energy security analysis of different storage technologies very valuable. Such regulations and requirements may ensure customers and producers to opt for more secure energy storage technologies. Alternatively, such policy implications might result in more research to improve storage technologies to have higher energy security levels. Although many storage technologies were discussed in detail (Akinyele & Rayudu, 2014; Barnes &
Levine, 2011; Evans et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2015), previous research was not done from the perspective of a detailed energy security analysis. Therefore, this exemplarily energy security analysis for energy storage technologies could encourage governments and policy makers to propose a starting point for a more systematic analysis of all technologies potentially used in comprehensive energy systems.
The third policy implication can be derived from the proposed future scenario for Jordan.
On a global level, Jordan can be an example of feasibility and applicability of a 100%
renewable energy system. Policy makers in Jordan and elsewhere can draw suitable rules and regulations to transfer the scenario into reality. Also, results imply that an energy transition does not happen overnight, but over a timeframe of 30-40 years. This is the same conclusion of Smil (2010) where he wrote that energy transitions always require much time. Furthermore, results of the scenario did not only show the feasibility and possibility of energy transition, as was mentioned by Sovacool (2013c), but also in particular, the financial benefits together with co-benefits for the environment and employment. Such benefits are regularly a target for policy makers. In addition, impacts on energy security are very positive from the perspective of a 100% renewable energy system. The link between energy security and national security (Dyer & Trombetta, 2013;
Phdungsilp, 2015) makes it important for national strategy planners in all countries to adopt regulations that make energy systems more secure, a 100% renewable energy system can serve such needs. Furthermore, the results imply that if the proposed scenario is not preferred by policy makers in any country in the world, but another scenario of their own is preferred, energy security analysis may be an additional tool for advice. Such an energy security analysis linked to the developed framework of 15 dimensions and 50 parameters can provide valuable insights when deciding among scenarios for future energy systems. As Yao & Chang (2014) found, policy makers should adopt policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and include as many and as diverse energy supplies as
possible. Such an implication provides policy makers with a tool to choose from different scenarios.
The last implication that can be seen from the results is the need for all countries to enhance their energy security levels. As energy security should be considered when energy policies are formulated (Ang et al., 2015), results from this research imply that policy makers in all countries should better analyse results of the performance of their country and spot the shortcomings and supportive actions for improvement. Numerical results of the ESI show clearly where each country is lagging behind and therefore policy makers in those country can develop suitable policies to improve ESI values.
Furthermore, cooperation and exchange between different countries can be one of the policy implications on a global level that are obtained from the results.
5.3
Limitation of the current research and future research prospects The main limitation of this research is the unavailability of some information and data.The first limitation was faced in Publication I when conducting the detailed literature review. Although many previous literature pieces addressed energy security, only a limited number provided a clear definition of energy security. In addition, definitions of energy security are diverse with no consensus. This kind of unclarity and vagueness of the term channelled the current research to formulate a new definition as presented in Publication I. Overcoming this limitation could be enabled if future research adopts one definition with consensus. It is encouraged to use the provided definition of this research because of its strict criteria of formation and because of its ability to provide all needed and generic analysis.
The second piece of limitation due to the unavailability of information, comes from the kind of dimensions that are included in literature. Many of the dimensions are not well
The second piece of limitation due to the unavailability of information, comes from the kind of dimensions that are included in literature. Many of the dimensions are not well